Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

3073:), I retreated because it seemed as though we were getting nowhere. Why? Because people are going at this from different directions. The way I see it, we have to start with the rationale for having an assessment process. The rationale is not to debate the merits of particular novels, nor to create a hierarchy of literature, nor to establish some kind of Knowledge (XXG) canon of world literature. We have an assessment to determine which articles need to be included and made complete and thorough. So, all the articles that are deemed necessary must be given Top importance, all those deemed highly desirable should be given High importance, etc. There are various criteria for deeming a book to be necessary (related to why users might search for an article) - familiarity, inclusion in a canon, recognition by literary awards, inclusion in school cirricula, adaptation into other media, influence on society, politics, culture, influence on later literary works. Any novel can deserve Top importance by having a large degree of notability in any of these areas or by having a smaller degree of notability in more than one. If we assess each novel against these criteria (preferably using external sources to evaluate, not subjective opinion), it doesn't matter what other books are rated as, it doesn't matter if the majority of editors haven't heard of a book (e.g. when evaluating national or generic novels). Again and again, people want to compare books rather than evaluate or assess them on an absolute scale. It's just as important for Knowledge (XXG) to have an article about Harry Potter as about Great Expectations, though there can be no dispute that the latter is canonical and the former not so much. I don't think sorting the novels into groups is necessary--we just need to spell out some guidelines for what makes an article for a novel necessary. So maybe we could use those criteria I mentioned above and give some details about what the difference might be between, for example, Top literary award recognition (e.g. IMPAC Dublin, Nobel, Booker) and High (e.g. Pulitzer, Giller, Newbery) . As I've said elsewhere, I think that if a novel has achieved notability outside of its sphere (international recognition for a non-American/non-British book, familiarity beyond its genre) it should be elevated from High to Top. 2899:

few novels when the entire rating system has some major flaws (which I attempted to first identify, second give examples, and third suggest improvements). Simply recategorizing a few novels would be like putting a bandaid over a gunshot wound and then debating the size and color of the bandaid while the patient bled out. Reading the comments both before and after mine on this talk page, I see that a good number of people have similar concerns to mine. I took Kevinalewis' invitation for suggestions at face value, and I hoped that my comments and suggestions might be a foundation for improvement (and I still do). As a member of other WikiProjects, I know there is the knee-jerk reaction to build walls against outsiders to your Project, but the decisions a few dozen people make here affect millions of users, especially given that Novel articles likely get significant user traffic. While I appeciate the zeal that members of this Project seem to have to hit the ground running and start rating novels, I hope that you can accept constructive criticism with open ears and discuss this rating system and how it can be improved.

3207:

etc. it should be elevated to Top importance--thus children's books that are part of mainstream adult culture would qualify for example). If it turns out that 1000 novels of all the novels that have ever been written qualify for Top status, that doesn't seem excessive. It's much better that than have so many novels of canonical status or high popularity be relegated to mid or low that there is no distinction between them and a pulp romance, run of the mill series novels (think Star Trek, Buffy, Sweet Valley High), or fly by night thriller. We really have to think more along the lines of "Are there going to be people looking up the Pulitzer winner? Yes. Well then there ought to be an article for it." If we're worried about heated debate for collaborations, why not just choose a Top rated article at random each month? Those editors that can contribute will. If they can't, they'll just choose to contribute to other (hopefully Top or High ranked) articles. The same could happen for newsletter featured books (Improve, Create etc.). --

1935:

international attention than novels originally written in another language. These novels are generally not obscure to a Western audience. Which leads to the conclusion that if an English-writing novelist did not receive any awards outside his own country, his importance is limited. Depending on the awards, his major work (magnum opus) could be given an importance rating of high, whereas other novels, apparently in lesser regard, should then be treated to be of mid-importance. Now, if there is some other reason for the novel to be rated higher, it should be reflected in the article about the novel or about the author. In the case of Barometer Rising, there is no such evidence. The author only received national awards, and it is not his magnum opus. Hence my judgement of no more than mid-importance.

2524:

Rameau's Nephew Manon Lescaut Candide Elective Affinities Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship Wilhelm Meister's Years of Wandering The House by the Medlar Tree Fortunata and Jacinta La Regenta The Maias Adolphe Sentimental Education L'Assommoir The Heart of Midlothian Jane Eyre A Hero of Our Time Billy Budd Little Women The Red Badge of Courage The Confession of Zeno The Immoralist Our Lady of the Flowers Nausea Effi Briest Lazarillo de Tormes Radetzky March Romance of the Three Kingdoms Simplicissimus Water Margin The Home and the World Journey to the West Dream of the Red Chamber Gargantua and Pantagruel Gil Blas Snow Country The moon and the bonfires The Setting Sun The Silent Cry The Makioka Sisters The Temple of the Golden Pavilion

1600:

written, but to leave it out of a list of currently important books would be absurd. Or, my other example, Left hand of Darkness by Ursula LeGuin. I would consider it a highly interesting and influential book, yet one which most people have never heard of unless they read SF. I noticed that an attempt was made to review this book together with a number of other SF classics. The lack of response may only mean that no one (like me) had even heard of this page, but it may also reflect general disinterest in particular genre books amongst those who generally like books? So how do I place a book in the general list, which I would consider an important one in terms of its message for society, and which happens to be written in the field of SF?

1544:

manageable recommended reading list? The test of whether something has been translated seems a good starting point, but again must inevitably lead to thousands of candidates. If this list does become size limited, then how do we choose between those books which are accepted classics written some time ago, and those which are current best sellers. The current books would almost certainly fill the list on grounds of availablity, but might still be worse choices. Somewhere I read a story about the Harry Potter books, that the first three books had permanently filled the top three slots in the US best sellers list, so the list compilers were forced to create a new list of 'childrens' books, just to get them out of the adult chart.

2716:(hopefully) others see the folly of trying to "rank" works in such a diverse field. A step in the right direction might be to subcategorize: have lists of "top" Science Fiction novels, "top" Russian literature, "top" 19th century British literature. This might also help to reduce the western (heck, I can further confine that to read "Anglo-American") bias currently in this list. If the decision is to go with popularity as the criterion, then this bias is a necessary discriminator. If importance is the criterion, however, then this type of effort would be indispensible because the lists as they are now, when judged from the viewpoint of importance are just plain silly, especially beyond the "top importance" category. The 1878:

the problem really lies in the fact that we don't have a process to follow about these things. Which in turn seemed to be relevant to the project as a whole, not just to our individual evaluations of the books in question. That's why I decided to put the discussion here. The individual cases I raised as illustrations of the problems we're encountering--these are the kinds of debates on which we need more input from other Project members (how valuable is Harold Bloom's opinion vs. a dearth of adaptation into film/theatre?; how should nationally important lit be rated?). Though to be fair, it's true, I did allow some of my emotional response to creep in.

1845:

consistently given top honours in lists of "the greatest books" or showered with international awards are thought to be terrible and over hyped by many people. Then there is the problem of relative rating: should a highly regarded novel in the fantasy genre be given a Mid rating because genre fiction is generally considered less important than literary fiction, or should a book that is considered one of the best novels ever written in Dutch be given a Mid rating because no one who doesn't speak Dutch has ever heard of it, or should a book be rated Top because somebody's made a blockbuster movie from it so the title is popularly known?

2986:

up further up the ladder as the changes would need to be implemented across Knowledge (XXG) as a whole. Whatever we institute has to fit in with Knowledge (XXG) policy. We can't just make things up for this project and expect everyone else to fall into line. If you have concerns that are project-specific, then this is obviously the place to address them. However, at this point I would ask for ideas of what you would like to see changed, and not simply complaints about the current system. If you don't like the current system, what would you like to see instead?

1661:

resources available--we should focus on canonical novels that we know will be relevant ten or fifty years from now; the average Knowledge (XXG) editor and fans of the novel in question will undoubtedly work on the article without necessary intervention from the project (in other words, a mid or low rating is not equivalent to ignore and don't edit); we don't have enough objectivity to judge the value or importance of such novels--what might seem incredibly important right now might be almost unheard of given the passage of a bit of time.

3597:

presumably designed to impress teachers when submitted as essays. Only the most careless of teachers would be deceived when the material is used without modification--and it looks like WP is about as careless as any. These were the first two articles I checked, and a number of people have edited the article over many months without noticing. I urge editors in this project to check the articles they are working on. I intend to continue looking from time to time but do not want to take this burden for the entire content of this project.

2950:

it. As a quick personal summary, I don't think this should be about the "quality" of the novel, it should be about notability (as defined elsewhere), some aspects of popularity (geographically neutral), with consideration of media transfers (e.g. to film) and awards and nominations. The article itself should be the "prime" source for this notability information and this information should be encourage from article editors. How does all that sound as a starting place? ::

4246:'importance' designations were originally conceived as a priorty setting mechanism for WikiProjects to follow (work on the High importance articles first, then the Medium important ones). My preference is to remove the 'importance' designations categories altogether. As I find the WikiProject Importance categories irrelevant to the WikiProject and otherwise trivial, I, for one, have no objection to moving the proposed articles to the proposed importance categories. - 1945:

students outside the field of literature, Bleak House is not. Which leaves the question: is it a "core topic" in the field of literature? As I felt the discussion page was obsolete, I just changed the rating to represent the current number of votes (for all books with more than one vote, or where my vote was not opposed), not knowing about the quote from Bloom, which might have changed my mind, but the text you wrote earlier (

2700:

probably much more popular by just about any measure. But either way, it's apples and oranges. No, it's worse than that--at least those are both types of fruit. Instead it's more like comparing vegetables and desserts. Indeed, judging the importance of novels is about as risky as trying to judge the importance of food. Without further sub-specification (I'll get to that in a minute) this scale is next to meaningless.

3157:(3) Unfortunately, the biggest one. Depending on how wide we spread the net here, we could have somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 novels at "Top" importance. Would this really do any good, or would the sheer number of "Top" novels contribute to possibly argumentative nominations for collaboration? Would there be heated discussion about choosing a collaboration between as disparate a range of books as, for instance, 109: 158: 140: 1883:

felt there was enough reason to not reduce their rating to High-importance. However, as I explained before, I felt (and still feel) there is a need to reach consensus about which novels should have which importance rating. If one bypasses the discussion, there really is no need for trying to establish consensus any more, is there? People can then just rate whatever and however they like.

168: 3052:

question that is at the heart of this problem: what makes a novel important? And he's certainly hit on some potential criteria. Let's develop these and some more. In general, this scale is doomed to be at least somewhat subjective (as all notability issues are) but at the very least it would be nice to make it a little less arbitrary and a lot more consistant.

1252:, since the editors are deciding which books are important and which aren't; (2) I don't see what the use to the readers of the encyclopedia is; and (3) the rules are unclear -- there's tons of popular fiction getting rated as "mid" that should, IMHO, be "low", but (a) I'm not particularly interested in debating it book by book and (b) what's the point if we do? 1827:

discussion to go on there in the place intended for discussion of that article. Obviously the higher up the grading scale you go, the more important it seems to get opinions outside those of the contributors to that particular article, but until we reach mid or even high the need for intense voting before any action is taken seems less urgent somehow.

1657:. I also disagree with a limit-per-author system. There are certain prolific and very influential novelists that have more than two or three books that deserve to be rated of top importance--if you have a Dickens or an Austen shouldn't their most important books be given a higher rating than lesser novelists no matter how many there are? 3233:(conducted about two years ago in Czech republic) and tried to search the assessed books there, and vote in favour of that present. The poll was inspired by similar done in other countries, so, probably, some list of such lists could be compiled and some measure of world popularity set up by counting of occurence of books in such lists. 1873:@Ibis3: I don't understand why you assume that replying on my talk page would result in escalating things into even more of a conflict. In fact, I think you accomplished just the opposite by replying here and mentioning individual cases which would have been better suited for an individual discussion between the both of us. 2654:

novel deemed worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) article". In other words there are articles worthy of inclusion and some not; this is just a slight extension of that idea and between articles. The motivational issues are real and we need to struggle our way through those. Can I suggest you have a look at the pages related to

3938:

It sometimes happens. You didn't do anything wrong. Its just that Knowledge (XXG)'s server have not recognised the change yet. You can force it to change by purging the page (IE: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: Ctrl-Shift-R. Konqueror and Safari: Just click the

3510:

The word "importance" slightly unfortunate (some project use "priority") the intention is to assess the relative importance of having an article in wikipedia, so yes bestseller, awards, etc and all other aspects of notability defined more comprehensively elsewhere are a factor. Determining what these

3242:

What's probably harder are some criteria on "importance". Personaly I find the above mentioned importance arguments quite suspect - statements comparing "The Lord of the Rings" (presumably low literary value?) with "Ulysses" (presumably high literary value?) sound more like a premise than result of

1944:

As far as Dickens is concerned, something else plays a role. The definition of Top-importance is that a novel should be a "core" topic in the field of literature OR it should be highly notable for students outside the field of literature. Both Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol are highly notable for

1877:

You just seemed very upset & I noticed that you went and set all the ratings according to the votes on the Top Assessment page. I was a little upset too because it felt like you were accusing me of ignoring you when I felt that you had ignored me. I just wanted to take a step back, realising that

1844:

I don't think there's likely to be much dispute over the Quality assessment. The problem is the Importance rating--partly because there are no clear guidelines about what differentiates a High from a Top rating. And because it lends itself to subjective evaluation--after all even those books that are

1816:

However, what do we do about the non-top importance novels? I suspect the vast majority of the articles in progress are rated stub or start. Do we need to vote when a stub article gains sufficient information to become a start? That seems a little unnecessary because in most instances I suspect we're

1678:

Errabee, instead of replying via your talk page and escalating things into even more of a conflict, I think it would be better to try and come to some consensus among all Project members about how to handle assessment, both for new articles or novel project boxes and for novels that have already been

1525:

BTW, I think it is really important what novels we choose to be Top-important. These will most certainly need to be included in Knowledge (XXG) v1.0, and work should focus on those novels. We need not be shy in naming a novel Top-important, otherwise literature would be represented in a lesser degree

4245:

My thoughts on the 'importance' designations is that they are inherently subjective. I am not aware of any criteria that makes one Top and the other High. I guess if there was a real criteria, the 'importance' would be a mainspace category, not a Wikiproject category. It is my understanding that the

4121:

Hey, relax. Updating the assessment of an article really isn't that big of a deal. Also, there's not a lot that has significantly changed since the last assessment, meaning that the class hasn't really changed. Keep working, but you probably don't have to worry about requesting the assessment here -

3662:

Oh, yes, I did that. It's been reviewed at least twice before, so I think I have a double redirect to the archive page. I had to give up and ask you fine folks because I don't get what I'm doing, and too much reading of Knowledge (XXG) instructions and bits of my brain fly out of my ears and hit the

3206:

As I've said, my idea is that national and genre-based award winners should rate as of High importance. If there is evidence that such winners have also made an impression beyond national borders or genre limits (e.g. by being short-listed for an international award, by recognition outside the genre

3076:

Then comes the question of what to do about the assessed articles. If an article is rated Top it should get some priority in monthly collaborations, it should be featured in the newsletter, etc. I notice that though there are a slew of currently Top-rated articles that have been neglected, there are

2949:

Am personally quite happy to take improvements to the way "WPNovels" implements the rating system (however see Silverthorn's comments below about the principle and wikipedia issues) and if a more objective scheme for their application (to novels) can be "simply" described - I think we should look at

2910:

Make no mistake, I am quite unhappy with the rating system as it is. But as Kevinalewis already pointed out, this rating system is used throughout Knowledge (XXG), and the correct procedure to try and change it is to try to change the Knowledge (XXG) 0.5 and Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 rating systems. Also,

2765:

Within these subcategories, perhaps percentage quotas for the various ranks could be established. If 70% of the novels in Children's Fiction are graded "top importance", the ranking ceases to have meaning. With quotas as well, one would have to argue not only why a novel deserves to be included in

2653:

assessments world. The other thing is that although our description of the idea may be suspect and help would be welcome to improve it, however the idea of varying levels of importance is intrinsic to wikipedia. Notice the "notability" criteria issues, which you yourself allude to in the phrase "any

2601:

with respect to their place in the canon of Japanese literature. But if you start including these novels, where does one draw the line? What if I'm an expert in postmodern Danish feminist writing and can argue for the inclusion of 15 novels in this "top" rating? At this point, what real/practical

1952:

So if you do decide to question my judgement, please do so referring to the arguments known at the time of this judgement instead of presenting new quotes. These new quotes should only be used as new arguments, which can then lead to a new rating. Currently I'm not in the mood, but you can always do

1858:

As for putting assessment discussions on the Talk page of the article--there is a comment section of the Template for just that purpose. However, it seems that there is a certain sensitivity to these ratings that might be better evaluated by Project members as we sort out the evaluation criteria. If

1717:

We could then have a report page as a subpage to this one. When you've assessed an article, you post a subheading (i.e. An Instance of the Fingerpost/ I've rated this as Low because xyz). Then people can vote and discuss just as with your current Top Assessment page. If there is no controversy or if

1339:

As a new member of the project, I'm sometime finding it difficult to rate the importance, and certainly do not entirely understand the rationale behind the importance of novels as they are now. As such, I feel the need for some (semi-)objective criteria to rate the importance. Here are some thoughts

1310:

The whole of life envolves discrimination, you have discriminated in the above statement. Bear in mind the response above about it being a talk page, i.e. opinion and editorial aid based namespace matter. All it is an attempt to find some sense of "priority" in workload and scaling of notability. ::

3291:

Could someone please review the assessment of this article. It's rated as stub-class but the article is very substantial, nothing like a stub at all. Also, though this is more subjective, it's rated low-importance which doesn't seem so nice. The novel was quite popular in Germany, was translated

2985:

one, not a novels project one specifically. Yes, it has its flaws, and it is ones that those discussing the assessment of top-importance novels keep running into. Nonetheless, if you have concerns about the assigning of importance values generally then it sounds like an issue that needs to be taken

2898:

If attempting to have a logical debate on the purpose and operationalization of this importance scale is considered having an attitude, then I sure do have an attitude. I thank Kevinalewis for his response, but it did not address any of my points. It does no good to simply change the ratings of a

2703:

Specific criteria for judging "importance" are needed. The criteria for the Quality scale, while far from perfect, is lightyears ahead of the Importance scale, which is not much better than "Important" / "Kind of Important" / "Not too important" / "A little bit important". Editors need to be able

2609:

I like the idea of rating articles for quality, as this is something that can be assessed fairly objectively. Why not rate articles just on quality, and let interested editors search out articles they are able to improve? I fear that these ratings will be harmful first because they are ultimately

2426:

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability

1939:

There's more to cultural bias than just language. British and American novels recieve far more attention than do novels from Australia, Canada, the Caribbean and anywhere else someone writes a book in English. I think if a book is highly acclaimed, has won national awards, is considered by scholars

1767:

1731:

a novel is given an assessment it will take a very long time (especially since not everyone is familiar with all genres/regions etc.). Also, there hasn't been any discussion of how much time/how many votes to wait for before making or changing an assessment. Or even what criteria are of more weight

1599:

I have had a look at the importance category descriptions on this page, and they didn't help me much. The wording seemed couched entirely in terms of literary merit. But as examples, it remains to be seen whether 'Harry Potter' will have lasting literary merit. Many critics have slagged it as badly

3537:

Hi all. I was wondering if people consider encyclopedic content when rating the quality of articles on books. Many books have overly detailed plot summaries, which is not within the scope of Knowledge (XXG) articles. Some articles are little more than plot summaries. I didn't see a mention of this

3302:

resassesed on request- although this could have gone on the main page. Ressigned Start as it is more than the most basic of articles, also it has been adapted a few times which suggests more natability. However do note that this aspect should be based on the notability of the article's subject and

2699:

Decide between "popularity" and "importance". To me it seems a no-brainer--importance should be the way to go. An extreme example, but if one had to choose between the inclusion of say, Harry Potter or A Tale of Two Cities, in Knowledge (XXG) it seems like Dickens should win even though Harry is

2028:

Bear in mind that this importance (or more helpfully "Priority" is a rating not of the standard of the literature, but an internal assessment of how importance and article is to have included or comprehensive article within such an online encyclopedia. It is a guide to editor on how much effort to

2014:

and the inevitable Harry Potter question, works which are quite spuriously rated among Tolstoy, is it possible that they should belong to another list or category entirely, one that would focus on volume of pages sold rather than the enjoyment or study of serious literature? As it stands now, this

1772:

Now, I interpreted that to mean that a book that is considered (not by me, but by authorities such as The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature) to be a seminal work in a country's literature should be accorded a High rating. If it were given awards or recognition abroad, it would then move into

1296:

I think "importance" is a very bad idea, even if it's just a way of deciding inclusions in the encyclopedia. It LOOKS terribly bad when you bump into the entry for a book and see that someone, somewhere, has decided that it is "of low importance". It looks bad because it isn't clear, nay, it is an

3596:

to be direct and literal copies from Gradesaver and similar sources, available online, & actually cited and linked on the face of the article. (identified material has been removed, and the person inserting it warned.) There is a characteristic writing style in study guides such as these,

2573:

I didn't find out about this importance rating of novels until today, and partly curious and partly skeptical I read this page and through the lists of novels of varying ranks. After doing so, I have the same question I had when I started: What exactly is the purpose of this rating? I have read

1896:

About your suggestion for a new procedure. I indeed had something like that in mind, but I can't agree with your third suggestion, that in the case of no consensus it could be put at the bottom of the Assessment page as a request. Who would be available to do that new assessment? Even more so, it

1882:

I never assumed you didn't act in good faith, and you certainly don't need to remind me of that guideline. But it seems you assume I didn't act in good faith, which is absolutely not true. In fact, I've taken an objective look at the two new top-important novels, and although I'm not convinced, I

1640:

I agree in general with the principles of your criteria Errabee, except I think that the position of works within the canon of an author (according to academia, literary criticism, 'best of' lists, literary awards etc.) should hold more weight than evidence of popular adaptations. In this scheme,

3379:

notice as it has all those hallmarks. Agreed there is a set of references. The problem is that there is no clear linkage between the references and what is stated in the article. If this is as inmportant a novel as you claim (and I don't doubt it) then it deserves a detailed, comprehensive, well

2998:

That comment about walls was directed more towards the "it's been answered, deal with it" remark above ... I appreciated Kevinalewis' (and your) response and receptiveness to discuss novel assessment. I am not terribly familiar with this system, and I hope we can all learn from each other here.

2626:

ratings. It's well and good to rate Novel A as being important and thus in need of attention, but what does it say to someone who comes across Novel B that is rated of little or no importance? What incentive exists to improve this article? I am of the opinion that any novel deemed worthy of a

1660:

As well, I think we should be careful about rating flash-in-the-pan phenomena as top priority. In my mind, it seems pretty obvious that the great works of literature should have a higher priority in this project than currently "hyper-popular" fiction. This for a few reasons: we only have so many

1543:

What is the view on how many books should go into this category? should it be a list of a few dozen, few hundred, few thousand? I think it would be possible to put thousands of novels into the top category (there must by now be millions of novels in existence). Is this a comprehensive list, or a

1475:

Sometimes novels can gain importance because a film adaptation is made. If that film has won an Academy Award in a category involving the script or in general best (foreign) film, and the book is equally well-known as the film, the corresponding novel should gain Top-importance. Examples include

1123:

Can't be done, as this is a Knowledge (XXG) wide "Quality Scale" not just a WikiProject Novels scale. I have just transcluded it in here. I see what you are saying, purhaps you could think up a few example and we could put them as a small project specific addendum below the full table. Good idea

2839:

be possible to gather enough sources to compile a somewhat balanced picture of the history of English literature. I'm sure many Wikipedian editors still haven't realized how much of a bias actually exists, as they are so busy trying to smoothe out topics on US and UK issues. In that sense I can

2799:

present in Knowledge (XXG). Judging whether a book is notable, and/or very notable is easy enough. Generally sales are a good judge of popularity for modern writings, and there are surely many notable sources online and offline giving lists of "must-read selections" in every language that there

2523:

Buddenbrooks The Secret Agent The Rainbow Women in Love The Glass Bead Game The Radetzky March My Ántonia The Age of Innocence As I Lay Dying Call It Sleep princess de cleves Notes from Underground The Idiot The Devils Death in Venice Buddenbrooks The Castle Moll Flanders Humphry Clinker

1826:

I notice that Ibis3 has suggested a separate report page for the justifications. I would ask why it can't go on the discussion page for the article itself. Is there a reason why this is not done that I am not aware of? A simple subsection entitled 'assessment' or something similar and allow any

1806:

page. However, whilst we obviously work towards all of our articles being good, how many are truly deserving of being viewed as the very top? I suspect, whatever criteria is used, that the percentage is fairly low and that is how it should be. Anything else devalues grading an article as of top

1146:

Having looked at the general descriptions on the quality scale, I think that quite a few novel articles rated as "start" should actually be classified as "b"... if anone wants to talk me out of changing a bunch of them or ask me for further justification of my position, please do. I won't jump

3472:

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably

3051:

Kevinalewis (may I just call you Kevin?) is on the right track when he seeks objective criteria ... to me this is like using Google searches when trying to determine notability or common usage. While it's not perfect, at least it's an objective, comparable criteria. Kevin is asking the basic

2536:

Surely Milton's Paradise Lost should be classed as being of 'Top Importance' given its standing as one of the great poetical works ever written? The skill of Milton as a 17th Century Poet was only ever matched by Shakespeare a few years before him. I would ask that the poem's position of 'High

1282:

Another way of looking at this is to remember that importance rating stuff goes on the talk page and is not in the article namespace -- it's just for prioritizing project tasks, not to tell "readers" whether an article is "important" or not If they looked it up in the first place, it's likely

1934:

Coming to the topic of ratings, I completely agree with you there should not be any cultural bias. And the current cultural bias would be that novels in the English language are given too much weight. These novels and their authors are far more likely to receive major international prizes and

2715:

Further subcategorization is needed ... Harry Potter, Winnie-the-Pooh, the Wizard of Oz, and The Lord of the Rings are lumped together with Anna Karenina, Don Quixote, and Ulysses in the "top importance" list. Maybe I am the only one who considers this eclectic collection rather bizarre, or

3036:

Why can't this very wide category (Novels) be split into smaller groups? As it is now, comparisons between apples and oranges are being made, and the result is a mess. But if this project could create a set number of subcategories and rate novels accordingly, the ratings might become more

1582:

I would be inclined to agree. An author being rated as significant in themselves, does not necessarily mean every single novel by that author should be rated of top importance. It would be better to pick only the key one or two for which they are the best known or had the most influence.

3818:

but do others agree that any book having won the Commonwealth Writers Prize is likely automatically entitled to a minimum of mid or am I completely off base here and do others feel it isn't sufficient in itself (I don't do assessments and am not really a participant in any wikiproject)?

3874:

Given that importance ratings go on the talk page, and not the article page, their purpose is not to be helpful to users, but to be helpful to editors, and particularly, to be useful to editors of this project in terms of prioritizing work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2728:? Maybe the God Emperor of Dune is a keystone piece in the SF literature (tongue in cheek), but I can tell you that Kokoro is in the Top 5 or at least Top 10 in any discussion of important Japanese literature. At the very least, it ranks a few spots ahead of Boogiepop Returns. 2876:. What is going on here?!? The more I look through the books categorized by importance, the stronger I feel that this system needs to stop; either permanently, or at least temporarily until these major flaws can be fixed. That is, if anyone is actually reading this page ... 3374:

I don't necessarily disagree with the assignment - however you miss the point. The article does not demonstrate the notability or importance of the novel it only states it. I have added a few "cite needed" tags where I think some extra referencing is needed. I nearly added a

3187:, where the fans of each genre advocate their own genre's nominee to the detriment of the non-genre title, which may well be of more universal impact? Here I honestly don't know the answer, but think that the possibility of it happening is unfortunately a fairly good one. 3681:

Does this term mean review-critics or scholarly-critics or both? I've been adding lists of scholarly studies to author and book pages (especially those needing evidence of notability), but I'm not sure how I should label the section: Scholarly articles? Critical studies?

1609:

Also, there is a grading criteria for articles and an importance criteria for novels. Unfortunately no mention of book quality. An important book might be virtually unreadable, whereas a very good read might be wholly unremarkable in its effects upon society. What about

754: 3427:. I know many average westerners might be know little about Chinese literature as well as Chinese novels, so you might never heard of some very famous novels. That doesn't matter. It is due to the gap between western and eastern cultures. Comments are always welcome. 2696:, general Knowledge (XXG) does not have these specific needs. Thus I am still a little unsure of what purpose this system serves, outside of that narrow purpose. I still don't like this system, but if it is to be in place, please consider the following suggestions: 855: 2473:

template. How do you change the bit that says "The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet" to reflect that there are comments? Following the link and creating a new page does not do it. Sorry to be such a dunce! --

749: 1379:

The major works (magnum opus, perhaps several) from these writers should be labeled as Top-important, as they are known (and translated) throughout the world. These works have made a strong impression on the world and other literature. This would include

847: 4299:

Should editors who do not belong to this WikiProject or one of its task forces sometimes edit a Talk page to allocate an article about a book? Or always place the {Books} project banner where there is none —the most general if i understand correctly?

2424:(please do go read the novels, the first 4 have been translated into English) marks the revival of literature in the Post-Soviet era (because Russians were all reading trash novels). Also please note the note in the criteria for the importance scale: 4272:

That makes a lot of sense. I never understood how they were designated, but if based on work-to-be-done, then yes, makes a lot of sense. In that case, since the two I've noted are finished, they should be demoted in importance rather than promoted.

1956:

I suggest we stop discussing about individual novels here, and continue with a general discussion. Discussion about the individual novels we disagree upon I would rather do on our individual user talk pages, as they are of no concern to others.

2574:

several times that it helps in "prioritizing" but I fear that this rating will be seen as more of a end in itself rather than a means to an end (ultimately, improving Knowledge (XXG)). That is, I fear that more time will be spent debating an

1930:

and changed it. Your revert of my change was done without any explanation and could be seen as problematic in itself. I then changed it back with explanation, so why would that be problematic? I at least tried to start a discussion (again).

1629:

I agree that we need some clear standards for importance of novels, and the relationship between importance to students of literature and importance to readers of the encyclopedia. Is there a good page someplace where we can work on that?

3618:

You know that point where you just start clicking on any link shown and have no idea what's happening and start to panic? That's what I get for trying to read the instructions to do it myself. I'm trying to request another peer review for

1439:

Lesser known works (ok, not entirely objective) from these writers should be labeled as High-importance, simply because they are written by that writer. translations into other languages should be readily available. These would include

2840:

understand why some people might think this is a good idea, and I commend the members of WikiProject Novels for their efforts at improving the content and reception of such a fundamental and necessary subject area. Representing the

2804:

and is thus fundamentally un-Wikipedian, and the fact that this information will not be presented in article space does not change anything: the effects of such a ranking would be reflected in article quality, quantity of articles,

1471:

Other works, even more obscure, for which translations are hard or impossible to find, should be labeled as Mid-important. Books from these writers can hardly be Low-important, as they are almost always of interest for the literary

2015:

category of "Literature" serves two masters. I'd also like to point out that contrary to what many have written about "students of literature", there does yet exist that mythical beast--the common reader--though perhaps dying out.

326: 1940:

and critics to be of high importance to a country's literature no matter what the language, it should be rated High. Again, if it has made a splash in the wider stream of literary consciousness then it deserves a Top rating.

1801:

Speaking from my own point of view, I am not sure that I think a vote before a novel is assigned a grade is appropriate in all case. I do think it is a good idea for the top assessed novels and have voted accordingly on the

1891:

assessments without prior approval. If we then can report them and ask for feedback, I think we'll be okay. If it turns out that there is a dispute, we can always agree to revert back to "unassessed" until it's been sorted

3087:

A helpful contribution and one I find broad agreement with. If you could think about knocking the bones of this into a draft proposal on criteria for this (article importance / priority), I would strongly support this. ::

2777:

I could probably think of more, but I'll stop for now ... I think this is an idea with merit on a conceptual level, but the execution should've been given more thought before it was implemented. I hope my comments help.

1495:

If the film winning the award is obviously more notable than the book, it should nevertheless gain importance, but not necessarily to Top-importance. Examples would include (oh dear, I hope I'm not insulting people here):

3923:) and changing the class on the talk was fine, but it didn't change on the main page (the tag that says "a -class article ). Did I do something wrong? Oh, and feel free to change the assessment if you think it's wrong! 2919:

offensive and denigrating, and would appreciate it if you would show some more courtesy. To summarize, I totally agree with some of the changes you propose, but I am very unhappy with the way in which you present them.

2429:

And I might add, as a non-native English speaker, I've never even heard of many of the novels you mentioned, not that that should be the standard (but neither should the fact that you haven't heard of those novels).

1718:

there is consensus about an assessment, okay. If there is sufficient consensus to change the assessment then someone can do that. (I gather that this must be similar to what you had in mind when you put up that page)

317: 3144:

qualify, or any of the other nationality-based awards? I might agree to this, for the purposes of breadth, provided that these award winners showed some good sales or critical praise outside of their home country.

2634:

I make this comments in good faith ... but that old phrase about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions keeps ringing in my ears. I applaud the aim, but wonder if a different method could not be used.

1618:

by Carl Marx. Ok, perhaps not novels, though arguably works of fiction, but how does a criterion for the importance of novels, arguably meaning their influence on society, connect with an assessment of all books?

951: 766: 3118:

Thanks. I'm happy that I've found some support for this approach. It seems most in line with Knowledge (XXG) principles. I'll look into doing a draft proposal with criteria and examples. It might take a week or

1074: 1736:. You seem pretty intent on changing it to a High rating from Top (in fact I see that you've gone and done that very thing). Why did you do that? It was your subjective decision that it was less important than 814: 2582:. Indeed, it seems like the very word "importance" should be replaced with the seemingly more appropriate "popular" (which, according to the first explanatory paragraph, seems to be the primary criterion). 3473:

well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of literature.

1266: 838: 49: 946: 879: 761: 579: 3485:

Why is this criteria set? How do you "gauge the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic"? Note this is the 'Importance scale', not the "bestseller scale".

915: 826: 3070: 2120:

currently ranked at top importance, all of which I would consider of considerably greater importance than any of the above (Most of which I had not even heard of, with the exception of the Camus,

809: 661: 430: 867: 802: 718: 567: 2662:

and their project aims the assessment, and particularly the importance / priority side is largely to assist those projects. If you have more questions or suggestions please do include them. ::

3623:. I've never archived and moved stuff, so I don't know what I've done. This makes me feel like my dad, shouting instructions at the monitor...I'm so much more hip than this, really!! Help! -- 1033: 903: 833: 469: 939: 874: 742: 574: 456: 1526:

than other topics. On the other hand, we do need to be cautious to name something Top-important, because the importance scale should resemble something of a pyramid. I'll set up a subpage

1188:"the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)" does this actually mean 4303:

Should we sometimes edit a Talk page to revise quality assessment? For example, revise class=Stub to class=Start or even to class=C? If not that, what about revise class=Stub to class= ?

4080:

Unfortunately, we are a little light on the manpower right now, and Wiki discussion speed can be atrociously slow because many of us are busy in our real lives as well. Sorry about that,

3155:, or any of the other top genre awards qualify? Personally, I would wonder about the top genre awards being qualifiers, because of the small scope of the genres in both breadth and time. 910: 821: 522: 482: 3303:

there is little in the article on this subject. "==Literary significance & criticism==" section should be provided to give more credance to the article and it's accurate rating. ::

2818:

This simply isn't needed, and there's no reason that anyone should follow the example of Knowledge (XXG) 1.0/0.5 when common sense dictates that it isn't a good idea in the first place.

1065: 3480:

they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).

3438: 2391: 1803: 1527: 927: 891: 730: 656: 425: 1156:

Certainly happy with that, different people have slight different perspectives on this, also the articles are in a constant state of flux and the situations may well have changed. ::

862: 797: 790: 713: 562: 3402:

I see. The article is still poor developed. Those I have claimed were from others' reviews. Unfortunately, I've never actually read it, so I might not help too much on this novel.

1028: 898: 615: 464: 1196:

to look up? for example, i'm willing to bet that rosemary's baby (rated mid), being the basis for a very popular horror movie, would get more hits than lucky jim (rated high). --

934: 778: 737: 451: 404: 1561:

Some very good questions. I would prefer to limit the list to a maximum of two (in exceptional cases three) novels per author in order to make sure the list is diverse enough.

1740:, so should be rated as High. You didn't back up your assessment with any objective evidence. On the other hand, I brought forth the evaluations of respected literary critics 1704:

You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

517: 477: 417: 1206:

Hear what you are saying, I would say the need and numerous people wanting would both qualify. We will need to adjust the form of waord to suit a recognition of the this. ::

922: 886: 725: 591: 2003:, of which I have just been made aware, ranks higher here than one of the core works of one of the more important 20th century novelists, Mr. Greene? I've heard more about 3758:

Assessment plays an important part in project maintenance, not only for the WikiProject but for the entire encyclopedia. You're more than welcome to improve articles and

785: 673: 603: 2873: 4306:

I do edit Article categories and stub tags, of course. And I do edit the Talk page project banners on technical points such as needs-infobox and needs-infobox-cover. --

610: 510: 309: 3511:

are based on verifiable information available may be another issue. But that is the aim. Not "purely" literary merit. Which is in itself to some extent subjective. ::

1967:

As per your request, I've refrained from discussing disputes about individual novels and have left the discussion here on the level of general assessment principles.--

1233: 3856:

Browsing through this discussion page I see a farrago of disagreements based on subjective judgements. The very idea of rating novels according to the undefined (and

3013:

Perhaps I am missing something (very possible, as I am relatively new to this Importance scale), but even though Importance is a Knowledge (XXG)-wide term, isn't its

773: 697: 627: 555: 443: 399: 2800:

exists a significant body of well-written literature. Any further attempt at ordering novels/books according to "popularity" or "notability" must be based purely on

4322: 2981:

I don't believe this is a case of anyone putting up walls against outsiders. If you read Kevinalewis's remarks again, you will see that the importance policy is a

1058: 412: 351: 1714:

When adding a Project template to an existing article or when creating a new article, it's up to that user to assess the article if they feel confident to do so.

586: 392: 339: 297: 4059:

I have been waiting about two days to get a rating for an article I submitted. No one is repling. Can someone do that please? I would be very grateful. Cheers!

3567: 3292:

into many languages and made into a film, the author was one of Germany's best-known childrens' writers, and the book itself has apparently been influential.

2733:

If these are inappripriately rated and you have more knowledge than us about them (which by your statements suggest), please rerate the importance on them. ::

685: 668: 598: 543: 380: 375: 84: 3860:) term "Importance" is not helpful in any way to users of an encyclopedia, and is in conflict with Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy. It should be discontinued. 3834:

I would encourage you to get as involved as you are able. We need those who can spot things like this. I would agree and will change those you mentioned. ::

499: 304: 285: 3635: 692: 622: 550: 438: 1721:

If there is no consensus, or if a person wants to have an article assessed/re-assessed it could be put at the bottom of the Assessment page as a request.

3424: 1051: 643: 34: 3431: 346: 387: 334: 292: 2593:. These are clearly very different criteria. As someone with an interest in Japanese literature, I can give you a slew of novels that would rate 680: 538: 90: 4194: 2725: 2132: 1949:) didn't make me change my opinion. It indicated to me that there are several other equally important or even more important novels by Dickens. 280: 4198: 4354: 4349: 2304: 1686:, so please don't get so annoyed. Second, I'd also like to point out that my ratings were on books that had not yet been assessed before and 3239:

And - another intersting number may be article views statistics - to take as the most importat for readers simply what they read most often.

4359: 2597:

from the definition given on the Project page: "the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic" but

273: 203: 201:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the

17: 3776: 1021: 3501: 997: 2585:

Which leads me to another point: the two paragraphs (as they are now) completely contradict each other. The first paragraph cites

30: 3025:, then where can I find the specific wording that defines importance? If such a definition does not exist, why can't WikiProject 4010: 3970: 3046:

topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated

3017:

this project's responsibility? I understand that notability is Knowledge (XXG) policy, but isn't this "importance scale" just a

972: 79: 3333:

It is assessed as the greatest novel of China all the time by most Chinese scholars. Why it only rated as Mid-importance here?

1485: 1009: 1994:

Mid - Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it.

1096: 268: 246: 181: 145: 120: 2795:

I totally agree with CES on this, and further I believe that such a rating shouldn't even be attempted amidst the well known

1477: 70: 3545: 3365:

I suggest this as top importance, you can do some Google research, this is widely considered as Chinese novel number one.

2406:

is a candidate for attaining that status. I'll be using your lists to update that page ... some good suggestions there. --

1016: 992: 1859:

we make certain universal decisions here it will keep the assessments more consistent across genres and time periods.--

3803: 3159: 1698:

Who can assess articles? Any member of the Novels WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

967: 3021:

to help decide which articles should receive priority for improvement/inclusion in something like WP1.0? If it is a

2274: 3920: 3799: 3538:

anywhere, and I was just hoping that encyclopedic content would be factored in to the quality assessment. Thanks. ~

2467: 1004: 985: 4136:

Can you tell me what sections need to be worked on and expanded? And can you help with the article please? Thanks!

2796: 1515:

Remember, I only write this to provoke a constructive discussion, and I would appreciate comments on my thoughts.

4122:

several people are watching the article and probably would be willing to update the assessment when appropriate.

4015: 3975: 2289: 2486:

That's a problem/bug with templates; they sometimes get updated only after the page they're on has been edited.

1901:

Okay. So what do we do if we can't reach a consensus? Maybe there's some other procedure we can devise for that?

1269:

as a way of deciding what gets in the encyclopedia. I'm still not crazy about it, but I guess it makes sense.

4325:

clearly welcomes everyone to place the banner and to assess: "Any user can add ... Any user can assess ...". --

4167: 3928: 3726: 3687: 3327: 2495:

So what you're saying is I'm not an idiot? ... I just edited the page and the template worked! Thank you! --

2329: 1982:"Subject is a "core" topic for literature, or is highly notable to people other than students of literature. 1926:

I interpreted the next section as applicable only to editors who are not members of this project. So I've been

1501: 1090: 126: 2844:

Knowledge (XXG) editors who aren't focusing on English issues, though, I ask you to reconsider your methods.

1417: 4278: 4228: 4183: 3770: 1401: 3497: 3489: 2395: 2339: 2234: 1449: 1433: 363: 3293: 2019: 1887:

I'm totally with you on this one! I agree that we need consensus. But I do think that we can be bold and

60: 4334: 4315: 4282: 4255: 4232: 4210: 4187: 4151: 4130: 4115: 4089: 4074: 4044: 4020: 3994: 3980: 3948: 3932: 3904: 3899: 3896: 3884: 3880: 3869: 3849: 3844: 3841: 3828: 3783: 3752: 3730: 3712: 3707: 3704: 3691: 3667: 3653: 3648: 3645: 3627: 3620: 3608: 3578: 3548: 3526: 3521: 3518: 3458: 3451: 3448: 3406: 3397: 3390: 3387: 3369: 3360: 3353: 3350: 3337: 3320: 3313: 3310: 3296: 3272: 3265: 3247: 3211: 3191: 3123: 3105: 3098: 3095: 3081: 3056: 3003: 2990: 2967: 2960: 2957: 2924: 2903: 2893: 2880: 2855: 2782: 2750: 2743: 2740: 2679: 2672: 2669: 2639: 2562: 2557: 2554: 2541: 2531: 2513: 2501: 2490: 2480: 2452: 2434: 2410: 2384: 2324: 2259: 2050: 2043: 2040: 2022: 1971: 1961: 1863: 1831: 1793: 1668: 1634: 1623: 1604: 1587: 1565: 1548: 1534: 1519: 1505: 1497: 1393: 1326: 1321: 1318: 1301: 1287: 1273: 1259: 1240: 1223: 1216: 1213: 1200: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1151: 1141: 1134: 1131: 1117: 979: 75: 3589: 3493: 2885:

Kevinalewis answered your questions. I'm sorry that you didn't like them, but this attitude of yours (

2645:

It is a controversial part of the assessment system, however it exists beyond "Novels" and across the

4145: 4109: 4068: 4005: 3965: 3944: 3428: 3403: 3366: 3334: 3141: 3040:

I have not heard where the paragraphs with different guidelines come from (i.e. the "popularity one":

2850: 2137: 2090: 1694:

ratings without discussion. This, I thought followed what it says on the Assessment department page:

1429: 4161:

In high importance we have 8 articles, including a Hardy Boys. In core we have only 3. I think that

4251: 4206: 4124: 3988: 3924: 3824: 3722: 3683: 2717: 2399: 2319: 2110: 1457: 1405: 1389: 1100:. It is used as a base for those trying to assess the quality and importance of existing articles. 4220: 3380:

researched and documented article. It's is close but just needs a little bit more work. Thanks ::

2538: 4274: 4224: 4179: 4173: 4032: 3865: 3764: 3188: 3183: 3171: 2537:

Importance' be re-assessed with the view of it being re-classified as being of 'Top Importance'.

2403: 2344: 2334: 2314: 2294: 2254: 2184: 1298: 1683: 3010:

Comments (due to time constraints I have to be fairly brief but I will try to check back soon)

1988:

High - Subject is more notable or significant within the field of literature and outside it.

3748: 3575: 3542: 3227:

Criterion which seem to me to be accessible, and most meaningful, are realted to "popularity".

3053: 3000: 2900: 2877: 2779: 2636: 2359: 2349: 2309: 2189: 2152: 2142: 2080: 1708:

Perhaps we should develop a clearer procedure than this? For example, it could be as follows:

1654: 1646: 1465: 1441: 1385: 1373: 1365: 358: 56: 1927: 4085: 3890: 3876: 3835: 3815: 3811: 3698: 3639: 3512: 3442: 3381: 3344: 3304: 3089: 2987: 2951: 2734: 2663: 2548: 2381: 2299: 2105: 2034: 1906: 1828: 1789:

as Mid. These evalutations are not arbitrary and I have references to back up my position.--

1760: 1753: 1584: 1357: 1312: 1207: 1157: 1125: 1114: 4038: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2030: 4137: 4101: 4060: 4000: 3960: 3940: 2845: 2441: 2364: 2269: 1453: 1345: 3376: 2801: 1817:

all going to agree that there's now enough information present to remove the stub notice.

1511:

If the film was nominated but did not win, should also raise the importance of the novel.

1249: 4171:

is of greater literary importance than the Hardy Boys; the same with Ernest Hemingway's

3697:

I don't see that the "critical" is further qualified so all types would be included. ::

4247: 4202: 3986:

Uh, probably, but that table hasn't been updated since 2007, so is it really worth it?

3820: 2421: 2249: 2219: 2214: 2173: 2147: 2100: 2075: 2065: 1919:

Any member of the Novels WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

1620: 1601: 1545: 1361: 1284: 1197: 1148: 958: 704: 634: 529: 489: 1255:

Quality is a meta-rating, which is fine, but importance is another thing altogether.

4343: 4330: 4311: 4219:

That wasn't very clear. I was referring to the FA class articles linked on the table

4162: 4027: 3861: 3604: 3165: 3042:

the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic

2279: 2224: 2199: 2194: 1774: 1489: 1425: 1421: 1413: 173: 3744: 3539: 3285: 3244: 2921: 2890: 2487: 2449: 2445: 2431: 2417: 2354: 2264: 2163: 2158: 2070: 1958: 1741: 1737: 1650: 1631: 1562: 1531: 1516: 1409: 1381: 1270: 1256: 3762:

assess them; just don't be surprised if someone steps in and does it for you. :)

2463:

I'd like to start reviewing unassessed articles, but I'm a bit bewildered by the

4081: 3638:

page for instructions. Have a look and then ask again if things are unclear. ::

3152: 2528: 2510: 2496: 2475: 2407: 2369: 2209: 2095: 2085: 1745: 1733: 1642: 1615: 1481: 1461: 1445: 1369: 1353: 1349: 1113:

May I suggest that we change the examples given in the Quality Scale to novels?

198: 3959:

The Monthly changes section is missing C-scale articles. Can this be added in?

2416:

And I've done some shuffling as well today. But to play advocate of the devil:

3807: 3664: 3624: 3562: 3554: 3269: 3208: 3148: 3120: 3078: 2766:

a category, but also why it deserves to bump out another less-deserving novel.

2509:

Additional thanks from someone who was puzzled but not brave enough to ask! --

2284: 2229: 1968: 1860: 1790: 1665: 1611: 167: 163: 157: 139: 1530:

for discussion of the current Top-important novels, and possible candidates.

3593: 2239: 2007:

than this seagull book, though only through the associated motion picture.

1376:(and several others) for Russia) (I'm biased for Russian literature, sorry). 3743:

Assessment is waste of time that would be better spent improving articles.

3230:

When voting, I went thgrough the results of "Moje kniha" (="My book") poll

3802:

I felt it deserved at least mid so increase it. I then checked last years

3048:). If these are Knowledge (XXG) "policies", where is the original source? 1232:

I have voiced my dissatisfaction with the rating scheme presented here at

236: 4326: 4307: 3795: 3599: 2374: 2178: 3423:

I changed the assessment to my understanding of Chinese literature and

3261: 3236:

Another availiable number (or et least I hope so) are sales statistics.

3231: 3177: 2204: 1397: 1237: 194: 190: 1192:(like for a school report, etc) or does it include what people merely 2831:

Honestly, if Wikipedian topics were limited to the UK and the US, it

2721: 2390:

John, that's a timely query, and one that I would ask you to take to

2244: 1297:

obscure reference, and it may even smell of cultural discrimination.

4323:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Children's literature#Assessing articles

3140:(1) How to define "major" literary awards? Would, for instance, the 1664:

Oh, and Sandpiper, I agree with you about Left Hand of Darkness. :)

4100:

Can someone rank my article? I would really appreciate it. Cheers!

186: 3588:

In the last week, I have found major sections in the articles on

3343:

Raised to High and comments on rationale left with the novel. ::

3077:

low or mid rated articles asking for editors in the newsletter.--

3574:-importance by Project Novels, I hope you'll be able to help! -- 2168: 1763:

assessment is also problematic. On the Assessment page it says:

1748:, most critics now tend to agree, is his central work" (p. 289, 2116:

Note the following relatively random sample of works which are

1340:

I have (and please consider this a way to start a discussion):

3425:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale

102: 25: 2704:

to use more than personal opinion to judge both which novels

2402:

was demoted from Top-importance after a discussion, and that

259: 240: 4197:

seems to have 962 articles. By 'core', are you referring to

3260:

We aren't evaluating literary value, but article necessity.

2380:

And that's just a vague assortment off the top of my head.

185:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 3439:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Novels/Assessment/Top-important

3418: 1991:

The Name of the Rose Lucky Jim Jonathan Livingston Seagull

1804:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important

1528:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important

3071:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment/Top-important

2708:

belong in a category, but perhaps more importantly, which

1905:

You said you had problems with me reverting the rating of

4193:

I'm not sure what categories to which you are referring:

4178:

I think we should re-think these designations. Thoughts?

2606:

a given novel's importance, given this broad definition?

2420:

is iconic in the Netherlands, Belgium and Indonesia, and

2624:

run the risk of turning from descriptive to prescriptive

1985:

War and Peace The Lord of the Rings Pride and Prejudice

1773:

the Top rating. So for example, I'd be inclined to rate

4025:

Hey, I updated it in Feb '09, give me some credit! ;) —

1997:

Brighton Rock Rosemary's Baby The Body in the Library"

503: 323: 3798:

was rated as low importance and given it just won the

3441:

page to discuss the assignment to Top importance. ::

2917:

That is, if anyone is actually reading this page ...

2602:

value does this rating have? Could one really argue

2868:

I just noticed that A Tale of Cities actually rates

2688:

While I understand that WP0.5 and 1.0 must select a

1897:

would then be a one-man decision and not consensus.

2061:Should any of the following be of top importance? 1147:headlong into this right away, but possibly soon. 2874:The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time 1248:I think importance is a terrible idea. (1) It's 3568:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels/Collaboration 2547:Maybe - but it is not a Novel or even prose. :: 1234:Talk:Last Seen Wearing ... (Hillary Waugh novel) 3419:I've changed some assessment for Chinese novels 2589:as the determining criteria. The second cites 119:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 3138:Good points above, but a couple of questions. 2427:in other places—should still be highly rated. 1768:in other places—should still be highly rated. 1059: 8: 3268:require thorough Knowledge (XXG) articles.-- 1947:one of the most acclaimed of Dickens' novels 1104:Discussion of the Assessment Department page 3814:is mid. I know we aren't talking about the 3614:Need help moving or archiving...I think... 3069:After the last discussion on all of this ( 1682:First, I'd like to say that I've acted in 1066: 1052: 134: 3806:which to my surprise was also low as was 1094:assessment department page belonging to 4195:Category:High-importance novel articles 2872:Harry Potter, and on the same level as 2726:Boogiepop Returns: VS Imaginator Part 1 2133:A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man 1265:Ah, I didn't get that importance was a 1044: 207:to talk over new ideas and suggestions. 136: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Novels 4199:Category:Top-importance novel articles 3889:Couldn't have said it better John! :: 3437:It would be good if you could use the 3065:Importance, notability, and assessment 1732:when changing an assessment. Consider 1701:What if I don't agree with a rating? 1088:This is talk page associated with the 750:CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force 3999:Oh, that probably won't matter then! 2305:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling 1344:Many countries have major novelists: 7: 4295:{Novels} banner and basic assessment 108: 106: 3566:has been selected for this month's 125:It is of interest to the following 33:for discussing improvements to the 3919:I just tried my first assessment ( 1097:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels 213:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels 24: 3634:Hi, you will need to look at the 2398:went to top-importance today(!), 2392:The Project's Top-importance page 2029:put into getting these ready for 1690:never arbitrarily changed any of 179:This page is within the scope of 55:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4321:For what it's worth, I see that 2724:is of mid-importance along with 1909:? Well, as you yourself quoted: 426:Char. Article (pattern template) 166: 156: 138: 107: 50:Click here to start a new topic. 3029:create one that is specific to 1486:Around the World in Eighty Days 947:Diary of a Wimpy Kid task force 762:Chronicles of Narnia task force 3668:14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3654:14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3628:13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2627:Knowledge (XXG) article is of 2578:importance than improving the 2569:The Importance of "Importance" 2519:More top class important books 2514:07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 2502:22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2491:22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2481:22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2453:23:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 2435:23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 2411:18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 2385:18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 2155:(or anything else by Trollope) 1759:Your repeated reversion of my 1478:All Quiet on the Western Front 1: 3949:21:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3933:18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3321:12:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 3273:23:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 3248:22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 3212:23:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 3192:23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 3124:23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 3106:08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 3082:20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 3057:18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 3004:22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2991:16:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2968:17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2925:18:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2904:15:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2894:08:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2881:23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 2856:03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 2783:01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 2751:09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 2680:08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 2640:00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 2051:08:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2023:16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1288:16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1174:10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1152:16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 848:Napoleonic fiction work group 810:His Dark Materials task force 465:NovelSeries infobox (pattern) 452:Short Story infobox (pattern) 47:Put new text under old text. 35:WikiProject Novels/Assessment 4355:NA-importance novel articles 4350:Project-Class novel articles 4335:19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC) 4316:19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) 4152:20:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 4131:13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 4116:12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 4090:23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 4075:22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 3663:wall next to where I sit. -- 3297:22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 2720:is of high importance while 2532:09:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 2440:BTW, I think I would prefer 4360:WikiProject Novels articles 3905:11:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3804:The Book of Negroes (novel) 3609:03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 3459:13:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3432:12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3407:14:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3398:13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3370:11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3361:11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3338:10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3160:The Murder of Roger Ackroyd 2911:I find edit summaries like 2057:Weird top importance novels 2001:Jonathan Livingston Seagull 1972:18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1962:17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1864:18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1832:16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1794:16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1679:assessed by other members. 1669:22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1635:13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1624:13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1605:12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1588:13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1566:13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1549:12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1535:11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1520:16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 834:Military fiction task force 478:Character infobox (pattern) 318:Current or Recent Elections 216:Template:WikiProject Novels 4376: 4201:(which has 125 articles)? 3921:The Faerie Wars Chronicles 3885:17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 3870:11:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 3800:Commonwealth Writers Prize 3731:15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 3713:14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 3692:14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 3579:19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3549:14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3527:07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 2690:limited number of articles 2614:and probably doomed to be 2181:(or anything else by Zola) 1727:If there has to be a vote 1327:12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 1302:08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 1267:part of the WP 1.0 project 875:Science fiction task force 575:Disputed book cover images 413:Article (pattern template) 204:general Project discussion 4283:21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 4256:20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 4233:20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 4211:20:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 4188:18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 4045:02:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 4021:01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 3995:01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 3981:00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 3915:First assessment question 3784:14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 3753:14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 3044:vs. the "importance one": 3037:consistant across genres. 2394:. You'll find there that 2290:The Charterhouse of Parma 2275:Tess of the d'Urbervilles 1914:Who can assess articles? 1283:important to them anyway. 1274:16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1260:14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1241:23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 961: 911:Sword of Truth task force 822:Lemony Snicket task force 707: 637: 532: 492: 369: 262: 151: 133: 85:Be welcoming to newcomers 4168:The Red Badge of Courage 3850:14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 3829:16:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 3328:Dream of the Red Chamber 2563:09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 2542:14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 2330:The Return of the Native 1502:The Silence of the Lambs 1224:05:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1201:02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1142:12:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1118:11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 500:General discussion forum 347:Announcements (template) 1649:would rate higher than 1402:The Old Man and the Sea 863:Rick Riordan task force 798:Harry Potter task force 714:19th century task force 657:Assessment Top priority 563:Disputed novel articles 2694:limited amount of time 2396:The Portrait of a Lady 2340:The Sound and The Fury 2235:Notes from Underground 2033:. Hope that helps. :: 1770: 1706: 1434:The Brothers Karamazov 1418:The Captain's Daughter 899:Short story task force 439:Book infobox (pattern) 80:avoid personal attacks 3621:To Kill a Mockingbird 3570:. Since it is rated 3266:The Lord of the Rings 3015:application to novels 2325:The Red and the Black 2260:Sense and Sensibility 2012:The Lord of the Rings 1765: 1696: 1506:The Cider House Rules 1498:From Here to Eternity 1394:Sense and Sensibility 935:Roald Dahl task force 738:Australian task force 3533:Encyclopedic content 3142:Miles Franklin Award 2915:and statements like 2138:A Tale of Two Cities 2091:Swallows and Amazons 1787:Children of My Heart 1614:by Adolf Hitler, or 1430:Crime and Punishment 1017:Infobox Novel series 518:Novel categorization 493:Current discussions 370:Article information 4157:Importance question 3590:Midnight's Children 3243:some evaluation. -- 3224:I completely agree. 2718:God Emperor of Dune 2459:Help with reviewing 2400:The Pickwick Papers 2320:The Pickwick Papers 1744:(who says himself " 1458:The Kreutzer Sonata 1406:The Grapes of Wrath 1390:Pride and Prejudice 1184:Importance criteria 993:Infobox Short story 923:Twilight task force 887:Shannara task force 726:39 Clues task force 4174:The Sun Also Rises 3677:Critical reception 3636:Novels Peer Review 3184:The Scarlet Letter 3172:A Princess of Mars 2889:) is not helping. 2618:, in present form 2599:high in importance 2527:Just off my head. 2404:The Scarlet Letter 2345:The Sun Also Rises 2335:The Scarlet Letter 2315:The Magic Mountain 2185:Great Expectations 2010:In regards to the 1674:Assessment process 1335:Objective criteria 786:Fantasy task force 611:Infobox Incomplete 247:WikiProject Novels 182:WikiProject Novels 121:content assessment 91:dispute resolution 52: 3782: 3584:Copyright warning 3506: 3492:comment added by 2802:original research 2622:, and ultimately 2595:low in popularity 2500: 2479: 2468:NovelsWikiProject 2360:To the Lighthouse 2350:Things Fall Apart 2190:Heart of Darkness 2153:Barchester Towers 2143:Absalom, Absalom! 2081:No Great Mischief 1750:The Western Canon 1655:A Christmas Carol 1647:David Copperfield 1442:David Copperfield 1386:A Christmas Carol 1374:Fyodor Dostoevsky 1366:Aleksandr Pushkin 1250:original research 1081: 1080: 1077: 1039: 1038: 1005:Infobox character 957: 956: 703: 702: 633: 632: 551:Maintenance lists 533:Work in progress 528: 527: 488: 487: 359:Literature Portal 254: 253: 235: 234: 231: 230: 227: 226: 101: 100: 71:Assume good faith 48: 4367: 4148: 4143: 4140: 4129: 4127: 4112: 4107: 4104: 4071: 4066: 4063: 4043: 4041: 4035: 4030: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4003: 3993: 3991: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3893: 3838: 3816:Man Booker Prize 3812:The Secret River 3779: 3773: 3768: 3767: 3721:Groovy! Thanks! 3701: 3642: 3515: 3505: 3486: 3456: 3445: 3395: 3384: 3358: 3347: 3318: 3307: 3103: 3092: 2965: 2954: 2853: 2848: 2835:be possible. It 2748: 2737: 2677: 2666: 2551: 2499: 2478: 2472: 2466: 2300:The Great Gatsby 2048: 2037: 1907:Barometer Rising 1761:Barometer Rising 1754:G. K. Chesterton 1358:Ernest Hemingway 1315: 1221: 1210: 1171: 1160: 1139: 1128: 1068: 1061: 1054: 1048: 959: 774:Crime task force 705: 635: 530: 490: 400:Style guidelines 263:The WikiProject 260: 241: 237: 221: 220: 217: 214: 211: 176: 171: 170: 160: 153: 152: 142: 135: 112: 111: 110: 103: 26: 4375: 4374: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4340: 4339: 4297: 4159: 4146: 4141: 4138: 4125: 4123: 4110: 4105: 4102: 4098: 4069: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4040:majestic titan) 4039: 4033: 4028: 4026: 4016: 4011: 4006: 4001: 3989: 3987: 3976: 3971: 3966: 3961: 3957: 3955:Monthly Changes 3939:Reload button. 3917: 3902: 3891: 3847: 3836: 3792: 3777: 3771: 3763: 3741: 3710: 3699: 3679: 3651: 3640: 3616: 3586: 3558: 3535: 3524: 3513: 3487: 3470: 3455: 3452: 3443: 3421: 3394: 3391: 3382: 3357: 3354: 3345: 3331: 3317: 3314: 3305: 3289: 3102: 3099: 3090: 3067: 2983:Knowledge (XXG) 2964: 2961: 2952: 2851: 2846: 2747: 2744: 2735: 2676: 2673: 2664: 2571: 2560: 2549: 2521: 2470: 2464: 2461: 2442:Death in Venice 2365:Tristram Shandy 2270:Sons and Lovers 2059: 2047: 2044: 2035: 2005:Rosemary's Baby 1980: 1978:Who wrote this? 1676: 1454:Queen of Spades 1346:Charles Dickens 1337: 1324: 1313: 1220: 1217: 1208: 1186: 1170: 1167: 1158: 1138: 1135: 1126: 1111: 1106: 1086: 1072: 1046: 587:Articles needed 507: 329: 250: 218: 215: 212: 209: 208: 172: 165: 97: 96: 66: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4373: 4371: 4363: 4362: 4357: 4352: 4342: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4296: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4214: 4213: 4158: 4155: 4134: 4133: 4126:PrincessofLlyr 4097: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4056: 4055:Little Problem 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 3990:PrincessofLlyr 3956: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3925:PrincessofLlyr 3916: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3900: 3853: 3852: 3845: 3791: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3740: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3723:Aristophanes68 3716: 3715: 3708: 3684:Aristophanes68 3678: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3657: 3656: 3649: 3615: 3612: 3585: 3582: 3557: 3552: 3534: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3522: 3469: 3466: 3464: 3462: 3461: 3453: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3392: 3355: 3330: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3315: 3294:67.117.130.181 3288: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3251: 3250: 3240: 3237: 3234: 3228: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3156: 3147:(2) Would the 3146: 3139: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3109: 3108: 3100: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3049: 3038: 3034: 3008: 3007: 3006: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2962: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2847:freshofftheufo 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2745: 2730: 2729: 2713: 2701: 2683: 2682: 2674: 2631:of some kind. 2620:poorly defined 2570: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2558: 2520: 2517: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2422:Erast Fandorin 2414: 2413: 2378: 2377: 2372: 2367: 2362: 2357: 2352: 2347: 2342: 2337: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2292: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2237: 2232: 2227: 2222: 2220:Mansfield Park 2217: 2215:Lost Illusions 2212: 2207: 2202: 2197: 2192: 2187: 2182: 2176: 2174:Finnegans Wake 2171: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2150: 2148:As I Lay Dying 2145: 2140: 2135: 2126:My Name is Red 2114: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2101:The Chrysalids 2098: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2078: 2076:My Name is Red 2073: 2068: 2066:Erast Fandorin 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2045: 2020:24.131.209.132 1979: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1953:it yourself. 1942: 1941: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1903: 1902: 1894: 1893: 1880: 1879: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1675: 1672: 1638: 1637: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1538: 1537: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1493: 1473: 1469: 1450:Mansfield Park 1437: 1377: 1362:John Steinbeck 1336: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1322: 1305: 1304: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1277: 1276: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1227: 1226: 1218: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1168: 1136: 1110: 1107: 1105: 1102: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1071: 1070: 1063: 1056: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1025: 1024: 1019: 1013: 1012: 1007: 1001: 1000: 995: 989: 988: 983: 976: 975: 970: 968:Project banner 964: 963: 955: 954: 949: 943: 942: 937: 931: 930: 925: 919: 918: 913: 907: 906: 901: 895: 894: 889: 883: 882: 877: 871: 870: 865: 859: 858: 853: 852: 851: 842: 841: 836: 830: 829: 824: 818: 817: 812: 806: 805: 800: 794: 793: 788: 782: 781: 776: 770: 769: 764: 758: 757: 752: 746: 745: 740: 734: 733: 728: 722: 721: 716: 710: 709: 701: 700: 695: 689: 688: 683: 677: 676: 671: 665: 664: 659: 652: 651: 646: 640: 639: 631: 630: 625: 619: 618: 613: 607: 606: 601: 599:Infobox needed 595: 594: 589: 583: 582: 577: 571: 570: 565: 559: 558: 553: 547: 546: 541: 539:Main work list 535: 534: 526: 525: 520: 514: 513: 508: 498: 495: 494: 486: 485: 480: 473: 472: 467: 460: 459: 454: 447: 446: 441: 434: 433: 428: 421: 420: 415: 408: 407: 402: 396: 395: 390: 384: 383: 378: 372: 371: 367: 366: 361: 355: 354: 349: 343: 342: 337: 331: 330: 322: 320: 313: 312: 307: 301: 300: 295: 289: 288: 283: 277: 276: 271: 265: 264: 256: 255: 252: 251: 244: 233: 232: 229: 228: 225: 224: 222: 219:novel articles 178: 177: 161: 149: 148: 143: 131: 130: 124: 113: 99: 98: 95: 94: 87: 82: 73: 67: 65: 64: 53: 44: 43: 40: 39: 38: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4372: 4361: 4358: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4348: 4347: 4345: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4304: 4301: 4294: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4275:Truthkeeper88 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4225:Truthkeeper88 4222: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4180:Truthkeeper88 4177: 4175: 4170: 4169: 4164: 4163:Stephen Crane 4156: 4154: 4153: 4149: 4144: 4132: 4128: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4108: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4054: 4046: 4042: 4036: 4031: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4019: 4014: 4009: 4004: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3992: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3979: 3974: 3969: 3964: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3914: 3906: 3903: 3897: 3894: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3851: 3848: 3842: 3839: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3817: 3813: 3810:although the 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3789: 3785: 3780: 3774: 3766: 3761: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3738: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3711: 3705: 3702: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3676: 3669: 3666: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3646: 3643: 3637: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3629: 3626: 3622: 3613: 3611: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3601: 3595: 3591: 3583: 3581: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3560:Camus' novel 3556: 3553: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3544: 3541: 3532: 3528: 3525: 3519: 3516: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3467: 3465: 3460: 3457: 3449: 3446: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3408: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3396: 3388: 3385: 3378: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3351: 3348: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3336: 3329: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3311: 3308: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3295: 3287: 3284: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3246: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3223: 3222: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3193: 3190: 3189:Badbilltucker 3186: 3185: 3180: 3179: 3174: 3173: 3168: 3167: 3162: 3161: 3154: 3150: 3143: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3125: 3122: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3096: 3093: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3080: 3074: 3072: 3064: 3058: 3055: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3009: 3005: 3002: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2984: 2969: 2966: 2958: 2955: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2926: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2913:Anybody home? 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2902: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2887:anybody home? 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2857: 2854: 2849: 2843: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2803: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2784: 2781: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2752: 2749: 2741: 2738: 2732: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2681: 2678: 2670: 2667: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2632: 2630: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2607: 2605: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2581: 2577: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2555: 2552: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2525: 2518: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2503: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2477: 2469: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2428: 2423: 2419: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2376: 2373: 2371: 2368: 2366: 2363: 2361: 2358: 2356: 2353: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2343: 2341: 2338: 2336: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2283: 2281: 2280:The Betrothed 2278: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2233: 2231: 2228: 2226: 2225:Moll Flanders 2223: 2221: 2218: 2216: 2213: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2203: 2201: 2200:Invisible Man 2198: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2149: 2146: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2084: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2056: 2052: 2049: 2041: 2038: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1954: 1950: 1948: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1929: 1920: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1908: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1865: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1833: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1805: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779:The Tin Flute 1776: 1775:Gabrielle Roy 1769: 1764: 1762: 1757: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1730: 1720: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1673: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1636: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1607: 1606: 1603: 1589: 1586: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1491: 1490:The Godfather 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426:Anna Karenina 1423: 1422:War and Peace 1419: 1415: 1414:Eugene Onegin 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1364:for the USA, 1363: 1359: 1356:for Ireland, 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1334: 1328: 1325: 1319: 1316: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1289: 1286: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1253: 1251: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1214: 1211: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1183: 1175: 1172: 1164: 1161: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1132: 1129: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1109:Quality scale 1108: 1103: 1101: 1099: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1084:Documentation 1083: 1076: 1069: 1064: 1062: 1057: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1042: 1035: 1032: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1006: 1003: 1002: 999: 996: 994: 991: 990: 987: 984: 981: 978: 977: 974: 971: 969: 966: 965: 960: 953: 950: 948: 945: 944: 941: 938: 936: 933: 932: 929: 926: 924: 921: 920: 917: 914: 912: 909: 908: 905: 902: 900: 897: 896: 893: 890: 888: 885: 884: 881: 878: 876: 873: 872: 869: 866: 864: 861: 860: 857: 854: 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 840: 837: 835: 832: 831: 828: 825: 823: 820: 819: 816: 813: 811: 808: 807: 804: 801: 799: 796: 795: 792: 789: 787: 784: 783: 780: 777: 775: 772: 771: 768: 765: 763: 760: 759: 756: 753: 751: 748: 747: 744: 741: 739: 736: 735: 732: 729: 727: 724: 723: 720: 717: 715: 712: 711: 706: 699: 696: 694: 691: 690: 687: 684: 682: 679: 678: 675: 672: 670: 669:Collaboration 667: 666: 663: 660: 658: 654: 653: 650: 647: 645: 642: 641: 636: 629: 626: 624: 621: 620: 617: 614: 612: 609: 608: 605: 602: 600: 597: 596: 593: 590: 588: 585: 584: 581: 578: 576: 573: 572: 569: 566: 564: 561: 560: 557: 554: 552: 549: 548: 545: 542: 540: 537: 536: 531: 524: 521: 519: 516: 515: 512: 509: 505: 501: 497: 496: 491: 484: 481: 479: 475: 474: 471: 468: 466: 462: 461: 458: 455: 453: 449: 448: 445: 442: 440: 436: 435: 432: 429: 427: 423: 422: 419: 416: 414: 410: 409: 406: 403: 401: 398: 397: 394: 391: 389: 386: 385: 382: 379: 377: 376:Popular Pages 374: 373: 368: 365: 362: 360: 357: 356: 353: 350: 348: 345: 344: 341: 338: 336: 333: 332: 328: 325: 321: 319: 315: 314: 311: 308: 306: 303: 302: 299: 296: 294: 291: 290: 287: 284: 282: 279: 278: 275: 272: 270: 267: 266: 261: 258: 257: 249: 248: 243: 242: 239: 238: 223: 206: 205: 200: 199:short stories 196: 192: 188: 184: 183: 175: 174:Novels portal 169: 164: 162: 159: 155: 154: 150: 147: 144: 141: 137: 132: 128: 122: 118: 114: 105: 104: 92: 88: 86: 83: 81: 77: 74: 72: 69: 68: 62: 58: 57:Learn to edit 54: 51: 46: 45: 42: 41: 36: 32: 28: 27: 19: 4305: 4302: 4298: 4172: 4166: 4160: 4135: 4099: 4058: 3958: 3918: 3857: 3793: 3759: 3742: 3680: 3617: 3598: 3587: 3576:EncycloPetey 3571: 3561: 3559: 3536: 3488:— Preceding 3484: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3471: 3463: 3422: 3332: 3290: 3286:Momo (novel) 3182: 3176: 3170: 3164: 3158: 3075: 3068: 3045: 3041: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 2982: 2980: 2916: 2912: 2886: 2869: 2841: 2836: 2832: 2709: 2705: 2693: 2689: 2633: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2535: 2526: 2522: 2508: 2462: 2446:Buddenbrooks 2425: 2418:Max Havelaar 2415: 2379: 2355:The Tin Drum 2265:Silas Marner 2195:Howard's End 2164:Cousin Bette 2159:Buddenbrooks 2125: 2121: 2117: 2115: 2071:Max Havelaar 2060: 2017: 2011: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1943: 1933: 1925: 1918: 1913: 1904: 1895: 1888: 1881: 1872: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1771: 1766: 1758: 1749: 1742:Harold Bloom 1738:Oliver Twist 1728: 1726: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1691: 1687: 1681: 1677: 1663: 1659: 1651:Oliver Twist 1639: 1608: 1598: 1514: 1410:East of Eden 1382:Oliver Twist 1352:for the UK, 1338: 1254: 1247: 1193: 1189: 1187: 1112: 1095: 1089: 1087: 982:(protected) 980:Infobox Book 708:Task forces 648: 638:Departments 623:New articles 305:Coordinators 269:Project page 245: 202: 180: 127:WikiProjects 117:project page 116: 29:This is the 3892:Kevinalewis 3858:undefinable 3837:Kevinalewis 3700:Kevinalewis 3641:Kevinalewis 3514:Kevinalewis 3494:121.6.49.48 3468:Problematic 3444:Kevinalewis 3383:Kevinalewis 3346:Kevinalewis 3306:Kevinalewis 3153:Edgar Award 3091:Kevinalewis 2988:Silverthorn 2953:Kevinalewis 2736:Kevinalewis 2665:Kevinalewis 2550:Kevinalewis 2370:Vanity Fair 2250:Père Goriot 2122:Titus Groan 2111:Titus Groan 2096:The Assault 2086:Pigeon Post 2036:Kevinalewis 1829:Silverthorn 1807:importance. 1783:The Cashier 1746:Bleak House 1734:Bleak House 1643:Bleak House 1616:Das Kapital 1585:Silverthorn 1482:The Assault 1462:The Gambler 1446:Bleak House 1370:Leo Tolstoy 1354:James Joyce 1350:Jane Austen 1314:Kevinalewis 1238:<KF: --> 1209:Kevinalewis 1159:Kevinalewis 1127:Kevinalewis 1124:though. :: 1115:Grey Shadow 1091:WikiProject 1047:This box: 693:Peer review 4344:Categories 4142:DarkJak495 4106:DarkJak495 4065:DarkJak495 3941:Extremepro 3808:Mister Pip 3794:I noticed 3790:Importance 3563:The Plague 3555:The Plague 3429:Yao Ziyuan 3404:Yao Ziyuan 3367:Yao Ziyuan 3335:Yao Ziyuan 3149:Hugo Award 2629:importance 2612:subjective 2591:importance 2587:popularity 2295:The Devils 2285:The Castle 2255:Persuasion 2230:Native Son 1684:good faith 1612:Mein Kampf 962:Templates 850:(military) 644:Assessment 195:novelettes 3821:Nil Einne 3739:Pointless 3594:Adam Bede 3151:, or the 3019:guideline 2310:The Idiot 2240:Pale Fire 1785:as High, 1621:Sandpiper 1602:Sandpiper 1546:Sandpiper 1466:The Idiot 1285:Matt Kurz 1149:Matt Kurz 1029:Userboxes 388:Resources 335:JobCentre 293:Guestbook 93:if needed 76:Be polite 31:talk page 3862:Ericlord 3796:The Slap 3502:contribs 3490:unsigned 2375:Waverley 2179:Germinal 2106:The Fall 1889:make new 1781:as Top, 1472:society. 681:Outreach 191:novellas 61:get help 4248:maclean 4203:maclean 4150:orange 4114:orange 4073:orange 3745:EdQuine 3262:Ulysses 3245:Wikimol 3178:Dracula 2922:Errabee 2891:Errabee 2870:beneath 2712:belong. 2604:against 2580:article 2576:novel's 2539:Robsonm 2488:Errabee 2450:Errabee 2432:Errabee 2205:Ivanhoe 1959:Errabee 1752:)) and 1632:TheronJ 1563:Errabee 1532:Errabee 1517:Errabee 1398:Ulysses 1271:TheronJ 1257:TheronJ 1075:changes 281:Members 4082:Sadads 4002:Derild 3962:Derild 3901:(Desk) 3877:john k 3846:(Desk) 3709:(Desk) 3650:(Desk) 3630:Moni3 3523:(Desk) 3454:(Desk) 3393:(Desk) 3356:(Desk) 3316:(Desk) 3181:, and 3101:(Desk) 3031:novels 3027:Novels 3023:policy 2963:(Desk) 2797:biases 2746:(Desk) 2722:Kokoro 2710:do not 2675:(Desk) 2660:WP:0.5 2656:WP:1.0 2651:WP:0.5 2647:WP:1.0 2616:biased 2559:(Desk) 2529:Mandel 2511:Sordel 2497:Merope 2476:Merope 2408:Sordel 2382:john k 2245:Pamela 2124:, and 2046:(Desk) 2031:WP:1.0 1729:before 1323:(Desk) 1299:Leobot 1219:(Desk) 1169:(Desk) 1137:(Desk) 210:Novels 187:novels 146:Novels 123:scale. 4034:(talk 3772:habla 3765:María 3670:Moni3 3665:Moni3 3625:Moni3 3377:WP:OR 3270:Ibis3 3209:Ibis3 3166:Shane 3121:Ibis3 3119:so.-- 3079:Ibis3 2852:ΓΛĿЌ 2842:other 2837:might 2833:might 2692:in a 1969:Ibis3 1861:Ibis3 1791:Ibis3 1666:Ibis3 115:This 89:Seek 37:page. 16:< 4331:talk 4312:talk 4279:talk 4252:talk 4229:talk 4221:here 4207:talk 4184:talk 4147:talk 4139:User 4111:talk 4103:User 4086:talk 4070:talk 4062:User 3945:talk 3929:talk 3881:talk 3866:talk 3825:talk 3778:migo 3749:talk 3727:talk 3688:talk 3605:talk 3592:and 3498:talk 3264:and 2805:etc. 2658:and 2649:and 2444:for 2169:Emma 1928:bold 1892:out. 1692:your 1645:and 1504:and 1488:and 1464:and 1432:and 1360:and 1348:and 1194:want 1190:need 1067:edit 1060:talk 1053:view 1034:talk 1022:talk 1010:talk 998:talk 986:talk 973:talk 952:talk 940:talk 928:talk 916:talk 904:talk 892:talk 880:talk 868:talk 856:talk 839:talk 827:talk 815:talk 803:talk 791:talk 779:talk 767:talk 755:talk 743:talk 731:talk 719:talk 698:talk 686:talk 674:talk 662:talk 649:talk 628:talk 616:talk 604:talk 592:talk 580:talk 568:talk 556:talk 544:talk 523:talk 511:talk 483:talk 470:talk 457:talk 444:talk 431:talk 418:talk 405:talk 393:talk 381:talk 364:talk 352:talk 340:talk 327:talk 310:talk 298:talk 286:talk 274:talk 197:and 78:and 4327:P64 4308:P64 4165:'s 3775:con 3760:not 3600:DGG 3572:Top 3540:MDD 3054:CES 3001:CES 2901:CES 2878:CES 2780:CES 2637:CES 2210:Kim 2128:): 2118:not 1777:'s 1756:. 1653:or 1198:dan 4346:: 4333:) 4314:) 4281:) 4254:) 4231:) 4223:. 4209:) 4186:) 4096:Hi 4088:) 4037:• 4029:Ed 4007:49 3967:49 3947:) 3931:) 3895:: 3883:) 3868:) 3840:: 3827:) 3751:) 3729:) 3703:: 3690:) 3644:: 3607:) 3546:96 3543:46 3517:: 3504:) 3500:• 3447:: 3386:: 3349:: 3309:: 3175:, 3169:, 3163:, 3094:: 2956:: 2739:: 2706:do 2668:: 2553:: 2471:}} 2465:{{ 2448:. 2039:: 2018:-- 1500:, 1484:, 1480:, 1460:, 1456:, 1452:, 1448:, 1444:, 1428:, 1424:, 1420:, 1416:, 1412:, 1408:, 1404:, 1400:, 1396:, 1392:, 1388:, 1384:, 1372:, 1368:, 1317:: 1236:. 1212:: 1162:: 1130:: 1073:• 655:→ 476:→ 463:→ 450:→ 437:→ 424:→ 411:→ 316:→ 193:, 189:, 59:; 4329:( 4310:( 4277:( 4250:( 4227:( 4205:( 4182:( 4176:. 4084:( 4017:1 4012:2 3977:1 3972:2 3943:( 3927:( 3898:/ 3879:( 3864:( 3843:/ 3823:( 3781:) 3769:( 3747:( 3725:( 3706:/ 3686:( 3647:/ 3603:( 3520:/ 3496:( 3450:/ 3389:/ 3352:/ 3312:/ 3097:/ 3033:? 2959:/ 2742:/ 2671:/ 2556:/ 2042:/ 1688:I 1508:. 1492:. 1468:. 1436:. 1320:/ 1215:/ 1165:/ 1133:/ 506:) 504:+ 502:( 324:+ 129:: 63:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Novels/Assessment - Knowledge (XXG)

Index